Author
Topic: Canon 70 - 200 f2.8L version 2 (Read 6261 times)

I am looking at getting a 70 -200 F2.8 L 2. I have at present have the excellent 70- 300f4-5.6L, is it worth buying the 70 200L or would be better to go for 85F1.2L and the 135 F2.0L, and advice would be most appreciated.

I do have both lenses. Both are great but serve different purposes. 70-300L is great for carrying around, have longer reach but slower aperture. 70-200 are faster, gives better subject isolation @2.8 but is a lot more cumbersome to carry around. So whatever you want to shoot decides if you really need it.

I was debating between quite a few different lenses a couple months back when my friend gave me some advice, "If you don't have the 70-200mm f/2.8L II, don't but another lens until you get it." Granted, there are different lenses needed for different situations, but when I tell you it was the best investment I have ever made, I'm not exaggerating. I find I use that lens more than anything else in my kit.

I've owned and used the 85 and 135 and the 70-200 II (I) a bunch of times each because my needs change. But if I were to buy only one the 70-200 II IS fantastic! I've recently forced myself to useIt, since I didn't like it before and the more I use it, theMore I love it, it is magnificent !!

i own the 85, 135 and the 70-200. i like all 3 of the lenses for various reasons. without question, however, the 70-200 is the most versatile of the 3 lenses and the one that i use the most. if u don't own the 70-200 then it should definitely be the lens that you get next.

Depends on what you want to do with it. I have both the 70-200 and 70-300 you mention but it is the former which gets used the most. In fact I cannot even remember using the 70-300 in recent weeks, but the 70-200 has been extremely busy.

Both are great lenses, and each has advantages and disadvantages over the other, as I say, it really depends on what you want to shoot with them.

Judging by the lenses you're referring to, it doesn't seem like you're considering macro or architecture, but I don't consider myself a know-it-all, so I could be wrong.In your words, the 70-300L is excellent, so I don't think you're finding it lacking as far as convenience is concerned. Therefore, I would suggest going for the 85L and 135L. Those 3 lenses will give you a nice combination of fast/"artistic" telephotos and an "excellent" telephoto zoom.The 70-200 II is a fantastic lens, but it's a compromise between the 3 mentioned above. Not as fast as the 85 or 135 (though the IS is very nice for static subjects) and not as convenient as the 70-300.

Depends on what you want to do with it. I have both the 70-200 and 70-300 you mention but it is the former which gets used the most. In fact I cannot even remember using the 70-300 in recent weeks, but the 70-200 has been extremely busy.

Both are great lenses, and each has advantages and disadvantages over the other, as I say, it really depends on what you want to shoot with them.

Good advise, you have mentioned Lenses that don't really have the same use, between the 70-200 & 70-300 (I have both), the 70-200 is it, buy a 1.4x Converter and you have a pretty remarkable set up, but it's a bit of a Beast to carry about.

If your looking at Portrait/Street Photography then it's the 85f/1.2 II or the 135f/2, again I have both, the 85f/1.2 is simply with out Peer I feel, this is a superb lens, but, the price point between these two lenses is a deciding point for most, the 135f/2 is a great Lens at a ridiculously low price.

Keep in mind also that the 85 does autofocus slower then the 135, but personally I've not found that an issue since going to the 1Dx & 5DMK III, but it was a concern on the 5DMK II & 1DMK IV.

Logged

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

I am looking at getting a 70 -200 F2.8 L 2. I have at present have the excellent 70- 300f4-5.6L, is it worth buying the 70 200L or would be better to go for 85F1.2L and the 135 F2.0L, and advice would be most appreciated.

1. The IQ on 85L II is amazing, but AF is not quite fast - especially when you focus at far end then back to near. 2. 135L also has great IQ, I found 135L is kinda hard to shoot when your shutter is below 1/80 & kinda hard to compose the shots @ 135mm. If Canon adds IS to next version, I'm all in.

Both lenses fit very well on my 5D III. It feels very good and the weights are so much lighter.

3. 70-200 f2.8 IS II is on a heavy side. However, it will deliver nice sharp images @ f2.8 from 70-200mm. AF is fast and reliable.

I am looking at getting a 70 -200 F2.8 L 2. I have at present have the excellent 70- 300f4-5.6L, is it worth buying the 70 200L or would be better to go for 85F1.2L and the 135 F2.0L, and advice would be most appreciated.

It kind of depends

do you feel you NEED f2.8 throughout the 70-200 range?if yes then get the 70-200

however from a practical standpoint depending what you shot I would say get the 135 f2L for use when you want faster glass and have the 70-300 for a very high quality flexable zoom option

I use my 85 and 135 more than the 70-200 these days however certain things such as fashion runway shooting the 70-200 f2.8L IS II has pretty much no equal and for this typically a 70-300 would be too slow, I have considered the sigma 120-300 for this type of shooting but have yet to actually test a copy to see how it goes vs the 70-200